PER
CURIAM: This is an attorney
disciplinary matter involving nine complaints against Kernard Edward Redmond
(Respondent). After a full investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(ODC), the Commission on Lawyer Conduct filed formal charges against
Respondent. ODC and Respondent stipulated to specific facts and rule violations.
At a hearing before the Commission on Lawyer Conduct Panel (Panel), Respondent
acknowledged his misconduct, expressed remorse, and presented evidence of his
current success in the practice of law. A three-member majority of the Panel
recommended that Respondent be admonished for his misconduct. One member of
the Panel recommended a public reprimand and payment of costs, while another
member recommended a definite suspension and payment of costs.

We
find Respondent’s acknowledgement of his misconduct and remorse to be sincere
and effective in the mitigation of his sanction. We further find that as the
investigation progressed, Respondent was cooperative with ODC. Nonetheless,
due to Respondent’s prior disciplinary history[1] and the gravity and cumulative nature of his misconduct, we decline to adopt
the majority’s recommendation of an admonition. Accordingly, we hereby
publicly reprimand Respondent and order him to pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings. The facts, as stipulated to by ODC and Respondent,
are as follows.

Facts

Matter A

Respondent
represented Client A on criminal charges arising out of a 1999 incident. Client
A was tried and convicted. Due to Respondent’s inattention to detail and
failure to communicate with Client A, the Office of Appellate Defense (OAD)
declined to represent him.[2]
Respondent filed an appellate brief on Client A’s behalf, but ignored Client
A’s requests that he move to be relieved as counsel. Client A repeatedly asked
Respondent to produce his file, but Respondent refused to do so until he reimburse
Respondent $1,950.00 for the cost of his trial transcript.

On
multiple occasions, OAD informed Respondent that it would represent Client A if
Respondent filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. Respondent failed to
inform Client A of OAD’s offer and failed to file a motion to be relieved.
Respondent’s response to the notice of full investigation in Matter A was not
timely.

Matter B

In
January 2002, Client B hired Respondent to pursue a civil claim on his behalf.
Respondent became aware that Client B previously filed his claim in
magistrate’s court where it was dismissed with prejudice. Despite knowing of
no reason that the claim would not be dismissed, Respondent re-filed the claim
in circuit court. The claim was dismissed on res judicata grounds.

Additionally,
during the course of litigation, Respondent misplaced Client B’s photographic
evidence and, therefore, did not timely respond to defense counsel’s discovery
requests. Respondent was late in responding to ODC’s initial inquiry into
Matter B as well as subsequent requests for additional information.

Matter C

In
2001, Respondent represented Client C for criminal charges to which Client C
pled guilty. After Respondent left private practice to work at the solicitor’s
office, Client C’s mother asked Respondent for help in getting his sentence
reduced. Respondent referred her to his old law firm but also undertook
certain duties consistent with continued representation. Respondent admitted
that although he intended to sever the attorney-client relationship, he never
clearly did so and he knew Client C and his mother continued to rely on him.
Respondent’s responses to ODC in Matter C were not timely.

Matter D

Respondent
represented Client D in a personal injury matter. Respondent failed to notify
Client D that he was leaving private practice and that another lawyer would
represent her. Client D was ultimately represented by another attorney in
Respondent’s former law firm. At the time formal charges were filed against
him, Respondent was unable to locate Client D’s file. Respondent’s responses
to ODC in Matter D were untimely.

Matter E

In or
around August 2003, Client E hired Respondent to represent him in a property
damage case. Respondent continued to represent Client E even after he began to
work at the solicitor’s office. Contrary to Client E’s request, Respondent
failed to file Client E’s suit until March 2005. Respondent’s response to ODC’s inquiry in Matter E was not timely.

Matter F

Respondent
represented Client F in a medical malpractice matter and a disability benefits
claim. After Respondent began working at the solicitor’s office, Client F
requested his file. Respondent merely told Client F to contact his old firm
and made no effort to help Client F retrieve his file. Two years after Client
F filed his complaint with ODC, and at the suggestion of ODC, Respondent
retrieved Client F’s file and returned it to him. Respondent’s responses to
ODC’s inquiries into Matter F were timely.

Matter G

In November 1998,
Respondent began to represent Client G in a civil matter. Respondent filed
suit in magistrate’s court and took the file with him when he began work at the
solicitor’s office. Respondent did not communicate adequately with Client G
and, contrary to his specific directions, accepted a settlement offer of
$500.00. Respondent delivered the entire amount to Client G without deducting
a fee. Client G signed a release. Respondent’s response to ODC in Matter G
was timely.

Matter H

Before
and after Respondent left private practice to work at the solicitor’s office,
he represented Client H in a civil rights matter. The matter was tried and the
jury rendered a verdict against Client H. Client H requested that Respondent
turn over his file. Respondent ignored this request. Only after Client H
filed a complaint with ODC did Respondent attempt to locate the file. The file
was never found. Respondent’s response to ODC’s initial inquiry in Matter H
was not timely.

Matter I

While
working at the solicitor’s office, Respondent was assigned to the prosecution
of a defendant whose brother he had represented in private practice. Because
of this prior relationship, Respondent referred the case to a colleague. Nonetheless,
the defendant complained to ODC that Respondent had engaged in a conflict of
interest. The defendant’s complaint in Matter I is without merit; however,
Respondent’s response to ODC’s initial inquiry in this matter was not timely.

Law

ODC argues that due to the gravity of Respondent’s
misconduct and his disciplinary history, the Panel erred in recommending an
admonition. ODC argues that Respondent’s actions warrant a harsher sanction.
We agree.

Respondent
stipulated that, by his misconduct, he violated the following provisions of the
Rules of Professional conduct, Rule 407, SCACR: Rule 1.1 (a lawyer shall
provide competent representation to a client); Rule 1.2 (a lawyer shall abide
by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall
consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued); Rule
1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client); Rule 1.4 (a lawyer shall reasonably consult with the
client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished,
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.16 (a lawyer
shall not represent a client under certain circumstances and should those
circumstances come to light after an attorney-client relationship has been
established, a lawyer must withdraw from representation in an appropriate
manner); Rule 3.1 (a lawyer shall not bring or defend a claim unless there is a
non-frivolous basis in law and fact for doing so); and Rule 8.1 (a lawyer, in
connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly fail to respond to a
lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority).

Furthermore,
Respondent acknowledges that his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline
under Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413,
SCACR (it shall be a ground for discipline for a lawyer to violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct). Accordingly, we find that a public reprimand is an
appropriate sanction under these circumstances.

Conclusion

We decline to adopt the Panel majority’s
recommendation of an admonition due to Respondent’s prior disciplinary history
and the gravity and cumulative nature of his misconduct. Nonetheless, because
Respondent recognizes his misconduct and expresses sincere remorse, we hereby
publicly reprimand Respondent and order him to pay the costs of this action
within ninety days of the filing of this opinion.

TOAL, C.J.,
WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

[1] On July 26, 2000, Respondent received a Letter of
Caution in a matter unrelated to the complaints before us here.

[2] Respondent was given, but did not timely forward to his
client, an affidavit of indigence required to be filled out by OAD
applicants.